Emma specialises in Personal Injury, Credit Hire and Civil Fraud. She has significant experience in the County Courts, where she acts for both claimants and defendants in Fast Track and Multi-Track matters.


Buchanan Prize (2009), Lincoln’s Inn


Secretary to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Appeals Committee


Bar Vocational Course (Outstanding), BPP Law School (2009)
Graduate Diploma in Law (Commendation), BPP Law School (2007)
Diploma in Trading Standards (Jack Brudenall Prize), DTS Council (1996)

Professional Memberships

Association of Regulatory & Disciplinary Lawyers
Health & Safety Lawyers Association
Personal Injury Bar Association
Professional Negligence Bar Association


Patrizkova v Geeves

Claim dismissed. The judge was satisfied that the unusual circumstances in which the hire agreement came into being rendered it unenforceable against the Claimant, meaning that there was no loss to claim from the Defendant.

Manku v Dixons Carphone

Claim dismissed. The Defendant’s submissions regarding both rate and period were preferred. The resulting sum was less than the Defendant’s interim payment.

Yasin v Markerstudy

Finding of fundamental dishonesty against the Claimant, whose two passenger witnesses had withdrawn their statements on the morning of the trial.

Pavlovic v Bettercare Keys Limited

Emma acted for the Claimant, a child care worker, who had been dismissed following an incident at a residential care home, in which one of the senior care workers had accompanied a teenage resident to pay a drug debt. The Claimant had initially been assured by his colleague that she had sought authority for this course of action from her manager. He had no reason to doubt this because the incident had been recorded. He subsequently became concerned that the correct reporting procedures had not been followed, and disclosed this to a senior member of staff.

Foss v M&H (Reigate) Ltd

Emma acted for the Claimant, an apprentice hairdresser, who had been dismissed for gross misconduct. It had been alleged that she took a product home from the salon without permission. The Claimant had been unable to continue with her career since her dismissal because she did not have a reference.